Hansard

I thank the members, officials and everyone else who contributed to the work on the bill and to its scrutiny. I am happy to close the debate on behalf of the committee. Graeme Dey emphasised the consensus that has characterised the bill and said that he was pleased to see cross-party agreement not only on the principle of the bill but on its detail. I hope that that is shared across the chamber.

This is a shorter debate than most at stage 3 and we have seen shorter speeches than during most such debates, but some important points have been made. Oliver Mundell pointed out that, although it is not a contentious bill, it relates to important principles. We must acknowledge that. Neil Findlay reinforced that point and recalled the results of the survey carried out earlier in the parliamentary session, which should disturb us all. Gil Paterson noted that the survey suggested that a number of people had chosen not to make complaints, perhaps out of fear of harming their careers. None of us should be willing to accept that.

The bill delivers on some of the recommendations made by the joint working group, which included members representing all the political parties. I hope that a process that started and was completed consensually demonstrates that the whole Parliament wants to address longstanding and important injustices.

The bill has enjoyed cross-party support. The principle is that everyone has a right to work in an environment that is free of harassment. The legislation is a signal that we want to take the issue of sexual harassment seriously. I hope that these points also enjoy the same level of cross-party support.

The bill opens up a route for complaints about historical conduct that was previously unavailable to one group of staff: those who wished to complain that they had been harassed by the MSPs they worked for. This is not a question of retrospectively applying a new standard. It has never been acceptable to sexually harass a staff member.

The bill will allow the Parliament to hold its members to account when sexual harassment of MSP staff has occurred or been alleged in the past. It opens up an additional route of independent investigation, supplementing existing employment rights and remedies to which staff have access.

The Parliament has, or certainly should have and should aim to have, a zero tolerance approach to sexual harassment. Such conduct brings the Parliament into disrepute, and there is now a compelling public interest in bringing these past cases within the commissioner’s remit.

I am aware that there will be more substantive speeches in the next debate, so I am keen not to use all the time available. I will close by once again thanking those who have taken part in the development, scrutiny and passage of the bill and have recognised its importance. I also thank all members for the consensual approach that they have taken. I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the committee and invite members to support the motion at decision time.